California Divorce

Published on: August 24, 2012

Custody of Pets a Challenging Issue for Courts

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times discusses the unexpected to-do that surrounds determination of pet custody. An increasing amount of money, time and resources is being spent to decide the fate of household pets, and the process can be as complicated as a child custody battle.

Complications arise because the animal has no voice of its own, and can’t say who it’s rightful owner is or with which party it would prefer to reside. The average pet owner rarely thinks about routinely updating documentation to prove their relationship with their pet, so pet custody battles tend to be based on one party’s word against the other.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 17, 2012

The “Virtual Visitation” Trap

By Clarke Logan Young

Virtual visitation is the latest custody-related family law fad. California family law courts are issuing virtual visitation orders in lieu of face-to-face visitations where face-to-face visitations are feasible, albeit inconvenient. This is not good. Virtual visitation orders should only be issued where in-person child visitations are not possible.

Admittedly, virtual visitation helps people like deployed military personnel who have no control over their deployments and work locations keep in touch with their families back home. In some cases it is the only medium through which a very young child is able to know the removed parent at all. In such cases, virtual visitation orders allow non-custodial parents and children to have a “virtual relationship”, which is better than none at all.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 22, 2012

Deployed Miltary Servicemembers: Bill Preserves Custody Rights

By Clarke Logan Young

Proposed federal legislation would require state family law judges, including California’s, to automatically re-establish, upon a servicemember’s return from deployment, the custody and visitation schedule in effect at the time the servicemember was deployed. Under current law, many servicemembers lose custody and visitation time when deployed because they cannot be present to defend against requests modifying child custody and visitation orders.

According to this March 19, 2012 “Washington Post” article, if, during specific qualifying types of deployment, custody is temporarily granted to another person, upon the servicemember’s return, the court would be required to re-establish the custody arrangement as it was prior to deployment. Essentially, the court could not consider the servicemember’s deployment in determining what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child.

Qualifying deployments would include such deployments as those that prohibit the accompaniment of family members (e.g., combat assignments)l Also, deployments must be between 60 days and 180 months in duration.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2012

Police Handcuff and Arrest 5 Year-Old ADHD Boy for Battery on a Police Officer

By Clarke Logan Young

A five year-old kindergartener’s hands and feet were hand-cuffed with zip ties by a Stockton, California police officer who then arrested the five year-old ADHD sufferer for battery on an officer for kicking the officer in the knee. Lieutenant Frank Gordo was apparently victimized by five year-old Michael Davis. As an American, it is embarrassing to read articles like this November 2011 KCRA news article http://www.kcra.com/r/29847063/detail.html. As is unfortunately typical of articles like this, this article only hints at the real story and raises more questions than it answers.

Why were the five year-old’s parents not told for two weeks that their son was handcuffed with zip ties?

Why weren’t the parents called as soon as the decision to transport this child to a psychiatric hospital was made? In 2012, do American parents retain any rights to act on behalf of their children or can the State take a minor child into custody at will in much the same way the State can take possession of your dog or cat?

Continue reading →

Published on: November 14, 2009

Pre-maturely Litigating Psychological & Custody Evaluations

By Clarke Logan Young

Attorneys who either want to churn fees or who are afraid their client will not do well on a psychological/custody evaluation will oftentimes resort to litigating a psychological/custody evaluation during the evaluation. Their purpose in doing so is to unfairly influence the outcome of the evaluation. Unfortunately, they oftentimes succeed and the family is forced to endure a custody arrangement that is not based on the best interests of the children.

In California, the better practice is to wait until the psychological/custody evaluation is competed and distributed to the respective attorneys and the court and then, if you believe the evaluator’s methodology is problematic, challenge it by either impeaching the evaluator or by hiring another evaluator to perform a “unilateral” evaluation and to critique the first evaluator’s work. (Some states like California allow parties obtain “unilateral” evaluations without a court order; other states require permission from the court.) A “unilateral” evaluator is an evaluator hired by

Continue reading →

Published on: September 16, 2009

Divorce “Move-Aways” from Los Angeles

By Clarke Logan Young

WARNING: Never attempt to litigate a “move-away” case on your own. As every divorce attorney in California who has filed or defended a “move away” case will tell you, this area of law is fraught with fatal technicalities and a single innocent mistep can cost you your relationship with your children.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) is the controlling law. This statute has been adopted, with some minor modifications, in every state. We have litigated a number of “move-away” cases with great success.

One recent case involved a Nigerian couple residing in New Jersey. (Foreign nationals living in the U.S. are subject to the UCCJEA. Custody disputes in which one parent resides in the United States and the other parent resides in foreign country may be covered by the Hague Convention.) They had one young child and Mother decided she wanted to move to California. Father had to stay in New Jersey. Mother moved without Father’s consent and Father retained us.

At the hearing on jurisdiction, the New Jersey court and the California court conferred with each other telephonically, which is what the law requires courts to do when determining which state has jurisdiction. We were present in Pasadena and were able to satisfy the court that New Jersey had jurisdiction. Producing this result “tipped” the case in Father’s favor and within a month, Father was able to secure substantial custody rights in New Jersey.

Continue reading →